Show cause notices issued after excessive delay are deemed lapsed, and final assessments cannot be reopened without a valid appeal, emphasizing timely adjudication and adherence to binding precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Harshadray A. Dave for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Siddharth Dave and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Chirayu Mehta for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Siddharth Dave and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Chirayu Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notices issued by respondent no.2 Joint Commissioner, Customs, Mundra, Kutch. The show cause notices were issued in the year 2016.

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of export of nut, bolts, washer, hand tools etc. falling under Chapter Heading 7318, 8205, 3926 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner is exporting the said goods to Dubai, UAE.

5. Respondent no.2 based upon the intelligence seized the containers of the petitioner along with other exporters on 20.01.2015 on the ground that the goods are under weighing and are not properly classified. According to respondent no.2, the goods were required to be classified under Chapter Heading 7308 and not under Chapter heading 7318 and therefore, the same was considered as mis-declared goods.

6. The petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.7305 of 2015 challenging the condition imposed by respondent no.2 for provisional release of the seized goods which was modified by this Court requiring the petitioner to give bond for value of the goods for provisional release.

7. Respondent no.2 thereafter issued the impugned show cause notices dated 12.01.2016 in Special Civil Application No.3827/2023, Special Civil Application No.3833/2023 and Special Civil Application No.3859/2023 and show cause notice dated 20.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No.3856/2023 and show cause notice dated 29.11.2016 in Special Civil Application No.3825/2023 on three grounds i.e. mis-declaration of weight, mis-declaration of classification and mis-declaration of value of the goods sought to be exported.

8. The petitioners have therefore, preferred these petitions challenging the show cause notices on the ground that the same are without jurisdiction as no action was taken by the respondents after issuance of the show cause notices and show cause notices therefore are deemed to have lapsed.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE PETITIONER

9. Learned advocate Mr. Harshadrai Dave submitted that as per the provisions of section 28(1)(a) read with section 28(9)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (For short “the Act”), the show cause notice is required to be adjudicated within a period of six months whereas the impugned show cause notices are issued in the year 2016 and the same were pending for adjudication till the petitioners preferred these petitions in the year 2023 and therefore, the respondents cannot adjudicate upon such show cause notices after a period of seven years.

10. It was submitted that the impugned show cause notices are issued without jurisdiction as the respondent no.2 exercised the powers in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. It was further submitted that approaching respondent no.2 in compliance of the show cause notice after a period of seven years would not be an efficacious alternative remedy as the action taken by respondent no.2 constitute an abuse of process of law. It was therefore, submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Dave placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:

1) State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 3936.

2) Union of India and anr. v. Vicco Laboratories reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1225.

3) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of UP and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338.

4) M/s. Godr